Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Sure, post it somewhere.On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:Do you want to see the full 251 pages showing that theOn 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:>Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required toOn 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:>
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
definition of correct simulation.
>
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
>
report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest
people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one
one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have
simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years."only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when>
simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result
simulating this is right, because it is my result!".
>
The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
Some people here have that.
You seem confused.
>
>
I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually simulated.
>
The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your system, like the CALL H instruction.
>
call H was simulated?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.